The document discusses whether management was justified in taking action against a delinquent worker. It analyzes definitions of misconduct from legal precedents and concludes that demanding a bribe qualifies as a major offense and misconduct. The management action was therefore justified, as the worker violated the implied condition of service. However, the document also notes some weaknesses in management's case, such as only questioning the driver and not other witnesses, and lack of specificity in the charge sheet. It recommends precautions for the future like training managers, questioning witnesses, engaging unions, increasing employee awareness of policies, and using security measures like cameras.
The document discusses whether management was justified in taking action against a delinquent worker. It analyzes definitions of misconduct from legal precedents and concludes that demanding a bribe qualifies as a major offense and misconduct. The management action was therefore justified, as the worker violated the implied condition of service. However, the document also notes some weaknesses in management's case, such as only questioning the driver and not other witnesses, and lack of specificity in the charge sheet. It recommends precautions for the future like training managers, questioning witnesses, engaging unions, increasing employee awareness of policies, and using security measures like cameras.
The document discusses whether management was justified in taking action against a delinquent worker. It analyzes definitions of misconduct from legal precedents and concludes that demanding a bribe qualifies as a major offense and misconduct. The management action was therefore justified, as the worker violated the implied condition of service. However, the document also notes some weaknesses in management's case, such as only questioning the driver and not other witnesses, and lack of specificity in the charge sheet. It recommends precautions for the future like training managers, questioning witnesses, engaging unions, increasing employee awareness of policies, and using security measures like cameras.
The document discusses whether management was justified in taking action against a delinquent worker. It analyzes definitions of misconduct from legal precedents and concludes that demanding a bribe qualifies as a major offense and misconduct. The management action was therefore justified, as the worker violated the implied condition of service. However, the document also notes some weaknesses in management's case, such as only questioning the driver and not other witnesses, and lack of specificity in the charge sheet. It recommends precautions for the future like training managers, questioning witnesses, engaging unions, increasing employee awareness of policies, and using security measures like cameras.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5
He Asked Me To Pay Up
Raj Shekhar Dutta
Section B Group -3 Is the Management Justified with the action against the delinquent worker ? Labour Appellate Tribunal (Workmen of Shalimar Rope works LTD vs. Shalimar Rope Works Limited), An act is considered misconduct if Is inconsistent with the fulfilment of the expressed and implied condition of service Has a material bearing on the smooth and efficient working of the concern
According to exhibit5. taking or giving bribes or any illegal gratification whatsoever is a major offence
From the above definition of misconduct we can conclude that the worker violated the implied condition of service and demanding bribe can be treated as major offence
Hence the action taken by the management is justified
Weak and Strong Points in favour of Management Strong Weak Written Complaint against the employee Other 7 people were not asked about the incidence and just on the words of the driver the action was taken He was already punished for 3 days, for a proven misconduct Time of the offence was not mentioned in the charge sheet
The charge sheet should be specific and accurate such as time, date, place of alleged commission and also the person against whom such misconduct has been alleged to have been committed
Usage of vague terms in the allegation
Date and place was mentioned in the charge sheet Precautions for the future The manager should be trained in the legal procedure and made aware of the implication of each type of punishment Witnesses to the incident need to be questioned at the time of enquiry Peer group influence a greater role in influencing one behaviour. Thus organisational norms are expected by groups, the task of maintaining conformity to those norms can be left to the groups. Therefore the managers should try to engage the union so the employees follow the best practise Such issues must be avoided by taking the following measures: They were aware such things were happening so should have taken an early action The employees should have been made aware of strict action that could be taken is found guilty CCTV cameras could be installed in the facility to stop such harassment against the drivers